Kermit wrote:



I second that emotion! A board like this does not require personal disclosures but does require trust. Not blind faith, trust. Agendas need to be left at the door. They get in the way of real thinking!

A very prudent and thrifty student? You've got to be kidding me! 872€ after rent is hell of a lot of money in europe. Just imagine you would spend 1250 Dollar as a student every month just for food, clothes and pleasure. Was she in Disneyland?




872€, i wish i'd have 872€

Speaking of TJMK (True Justice for Meredith Kercher), Nicki has a new post up. The comment that follows is quite interesting.

Oh, I don't know about that.

Italy has a fiercely independent judiciary. They are completely free of government control.

It is a totally different system to the US. The judiciary are all salaried career people. None of them are political appointees.

To have an appreciation of the situation in Italy which is well understood in the rest of Europe it's best described as a permanent war between the judicary and politicians/organised crime.

Nearly half the mps's in parliament have dubious connections, past records, convictions etc. etc.

The Italian PM Silvio Berlusconia just had to pass a special law to keep himself from being found guilty of bribery in a recent case.

He paid mucho money to an English accountant to falsify his financial records.

The accountant has just been found guilty of accepting the money form Berlusconi and sentenced to 4 1/2 years.

But the court were prevented from reaching a verdict against Belusconi because a special law was passed to prevent it happening.

The Italian political system has obviously decreed that the mucho money which found it's way into an English accountants bank account fell out of thin air.

Personally I back Mignini and the Italian judicary against Sollecito.

Because of the international aspect of this crime the politicians contacted by Sollecito all ran a mile
when Mignini "leaked" their conversations contained in phone taps.

He and his friends know well how to play rough against corruption.

Skeptical Bystander wrote:

Finn wrote:

Quote:

Kermit wrote:
From Corriere della Sera - AMANDA's FORGOTTEN CALL

Amanda: "Suppongo di aver chia­mato perché ero andata in ca­sa e avevo trovato la porta aperta, ma non ricordo que­sta telefonata"
Rough translation: "I suppose I had called, because I was at home and had found the door open, but I don't remember that phone call"
That's a strange one, Kermit. I don't think Charlie held back information, by the way - I think I've seen the same phone records that he has, and there's no mention of a call to Edda earlier than 12:47:23. (The phone records date back to just after midnight on November 1.) So I can't quite figure out what call Mignini is referring to - does this mean she used a different phone to call on this earlier occasion?

I agree with Finn. We have the same phone records that are in Charlie's possession, and they do not show a call from Amanda to her mother or vice versa prior to 12:47 (Perugia time). These phone records show calls made up until cut-off on the evening of Nov 1 (SMS to Patrick at 20:35:48) and the first call made on Nov 2, at 12:07:12, to Meredith's English cell phone. The next call, at 12:08:44, was to Filomena. Filomena then calls AK 3 times -- at 12:12, 12:20 and 12:34.

Well it is definitely a mystery (or as another poster would say, a REVELATION!!).
It's a mystery, because I understand that the cottage didn't have a land-line (each girl had her own mobile or mobiles)(although, it's not clear how their Internet connectivity worked ... by using a wireless signal from the boys downstairs?)
But you, Finn and Charlie have seen the mobile phone records.
And Amanda seems to be saying in her reply that that call was made from the cottage ("... I was at home and had found the door open, but I don't remember that phone call")

So, what phone (fixed or mobile) did she use to make the call. And, really, was it from the cottage?
One possibility is that her computer was there, maybe it was some sort of Skype-call patched into the USA phone grid (there are lots of services of that sort, which save lots of money on international calls).

WOW! was there anything further, a reaction from the court?

Question:

I seem to remember that one of the charges was theft, but the prosecution has now finished presenting their case, and I haven't seen anything relating to the missing money.

Have I missed something? Was this ever discussed at the trial? Has this been dropped by the prosecution?

Good point about the Skype Kermit. We know from DJ's interview with Candace Dempsey that Knox spent quite a bit of time and money Skyping him - why not others? It's an economical way to stay in touch.

From Knox's MySpace page in our "In their own words" section:

" the house has a kitchen, 2 bathrooms, and four bathrooms. not to mention a washing maschine, and internet access. not to mention, she owns two guitars and wants to play with me."

So just which type of "internet access"? We know Sollecito's apartment 5 minutes away had a connection through a landline. A couple months ago we saw that Broadband was being installed throughout Perugia.

I agree. Sourced would really help.
( a relaible source would be? Idea-..someone whose testimony was not "disallowed"..that could be one prerequisite)

many posters think AK and RS are guilty somehow for not carrying around a "stopwatch".
Maybe I'm missing the point again?

Don't get em wrong, I agree a cellphone log activity placing someone in a location, or contradicting their alibi they were sleeping is huge evidence..... one hour? or calling their parents in the morning? people do many things that may seem strange to you and me, and it doesn't mean their a murderer.
I find it odd the entire courtroom can have a laugh here and there in the middle of Merediths Murder case, does this mean they are ALL demented?

"stopwatch" details-
Then defense will just answer away all of that "stopwatch" banter, yes?
As AK did this weekend, stating she doesn't keep time and dates well.
All her answers will be vague- thats not an admission of guilt to murder.
We can believe it or not.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008120524_amandaknox17m0.html





I think we must of asked CMellas a million questions about these phone calls. Remember how sketchy he was about the details such as the time? He never gave us a clear answer on the most simple of all questions. What time was the first call?

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito not only gave conflicting witness statements, but also gave completely different accounts of where they were, who they were with and what they were doing on the night of the murder.

Bear in mind that Knox and Sollecito lied from the very beginning before they were suspects.

By Nov.2 a.m. Sollecito's computer was in use again (our interest in his computer was principally focussed towards the evening and night of 1-2 Nov. 2007. She could have done a Skype call from his place (although I would have thought that the computer forensic people would have taken note of that .... unless they were given specific instructions to find the last activity in the evening of 1 Nov. and the first activity on 2 Nov., and not worry about what activity there was before or after.

Also, there are a number of Internet cafés within 5 minutes walking of the cottage of RS's place.

I also wanted to add, did Amanda make that first call to her mother BEFORE or AFTER the infamous shower?

<snip> But was the side judge Beatrice Cristiani who asked a really uncomfortable question, women are more motivated. Okay the shower, but why did Amanda take a shampoo in the morning when the day before she had one? It's simple for Amanda, Every day I wash my hair.
Highly suspicious habits... <snip>

please tell me he is seriously joking.....
everyone I know does this in the US? shampoo everyday. some might skip a day, thats about it.

this question is from a judge?!!!! yikes... what a strange question, uneducated of a US kids habits, I guess.

Amanda's forgotten call

The thing the prosecution really emphasised was the 10th Nov bugged conversation between Knox and her mother in the jail. The mother expressed suprise that she'd been called at that unearthly hour 'when nothing had happened yet'. The other thing is that it was RS who later told Knox to phone Filomena etc.

Doesn't make sense, she is so concerned about the open door etc. she calls her mother in the middle of the night, but later needs RS to prompt her to call her flatmates?

I must wade back through the audios to get te exact time of the call, can't remember whether it was stated, I'm sure there was no mention of the cell it was traced to, but that would be good to know?

Next week I'll try to keep a log of the audio time for each point, but it is hard work just keeping up with the notes.

Good point. *thinks back to my student days of ramen noodles, a car so old and rusty I needed a garden hose and plastic funnel to try and fill the gas tank, and secondhand clothes gratefully accepted from my well-off older cousin* (Actually, I still drive a 23-year-old car, to the endless amusement of my friends, family members, and coworkers. But hey, it's by choice - it's a sturdy old Volvo and it's got cache!) (Okay - I cannot tell a lie. I also still eat ramen noodles.)

BTW Petafly, your use of the "wailing" emoticon never fails to make me laugh.

Anyway, it *does* seem like Amanda ran through a lot of money in a short period of time. Lots of expensive drugs, perhaps? I dunno.

411: The Dancing Itos!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks for that trip down memory lane!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Some of the best jokes I've heard and laughed at have been in wakes after someone has died. I'm sorry for your discomfort at the different moments of the trial. I think that it is not a problem as long as none of the lighter moments have been disrespectful to Meredith (which I don't believe has been the case).

I don't think that anyone believes AK and RS are guilty for not carrying around a stopwatch or knowing the exact time of day.

However, when people get the order of significant events wrong, especially when they need that wrong order to support their alibi, then you may suspect that something is awry.

At this point, I think that only the suspects and their legal teams are trying to suggest that the Telecommunications Police arrived after the calls were made to 112. The content of the calls to 112 make it evident that there aren't any law officers already on the scene.

And that is a problem. It doesn't matter if there are 5 minutes more or less between events (as long as you don't have a ridiculous Benny Hill scene of impossible activity). And, as we have seen, AK and RS don't have to carry stopwatches, because there are other systems which record the times:

• their mobile phones
• the carpark camera (which may be off 10 minutes)
• the Internet data records
• the tow-truck operator and his service records
• the 112 switchboard
• etc.

Tell AK and RS to leave their watches at home, all they have to do is to tell alibis which can match the rest of the data.

Now, if Amanda has remembered and described a multitude of calls made and received from around the time of discovery, then it's strange if she can't remember a call made to her mother from around the time when supposedly she was showering and doing the bathmat boogie.

Here we have some interviews from some of Knox's friends attending the UW graduation yesterday without her.

A quick glance at the comments section tells me that there are folks in Seattle that were not fooled by her appearance on the stand this weekend, or news reporter Roberta Romero's (of the same NBC KING5 station) earlier report where she stated the prosecution had "failed" and Amanda Knox came off as an "all American girl instead of a cold blooded killer".

Both reports here:

UW GRADUATION DAY

ROBERTA ROMERO VIDEO REPORT

"completely different" is a kind understatement.
I remain open minded, but reading in Raffaele's own words posted here, letters to his Dad...not only did the storys change during the interrogation time frame, they changed greatly.

being liars or not, it seems they have this last chance to tell their "final" story.
They, for the first time, can tell it, in the public court, being filmed.
Not thru secret interrogation rooms with no cameras, not "leaked" memoirs, there's no more chances to make up any accusations of any kind in front of that many people in this court room. I could understand voices being shaky for an introvert, but AK and RS won't have any more chances to exaggerate the story.

I'm so curious whether RS will uphold AK's alibi-testimony. Has he confirmed already?
If not, when will Raffaele give his final account of Nov 1?

Paula,

Knox's 'I know, I was there' statement

Throughout the 2 days of testimony, the defense raised dozens of 'myths' about the case with knox, looking to dispel them, as well as potentially damaging issues, even if true (i.e. got in before the prosecution). I think they raised this 'famous' one.

This one is about a bugged jail conversation Knox had with her mother (10th or 17th Nov I think). They talk about the finding of the famous double DNA knife at RS's flat. Like the 'see you later' sms message, this arose from her saying she knew about it 'because I was there' ....perche ero li ... She really just had to say where was 'there', the murder scene or RS's flat. She, of course responded RS's .... that was that.

Thanks Kevin for looking into that.

Ah, I see, the "call record" is Edda's prison conversation with Amanda. What I find strange is that Edda makes reference to "when nothing had happened yet" ... what would the "thing" be that would happen?

• the arrival of the Telecommunications Police
• the arrival of Filomena and her friends
• the breaking down of the door
• the aftermath of the breaking down of the door
• something else?

Would Edda be surprised that Amanda would have called her in the middle of the night because of a break-in? ("you woke me up only to tell me you had a break-in?")

Or was there another call: "Mom I'm confused, I want to go shopping with you" .... Obviously (??) not.

If it is true that there is some sort of call to Edda when Amanda was in the cottage the first time, then how could Amanda - after a worried call to her mother (the one that Edda has described in so many interviews? where she tells Amanda to call the police after seeing blood and faeces in the house) - stroll to Raffaele's with the mop, have breakfast, clean the broken pipe, and only then tell her erstwhile boyfriend of a few days about the "break-in"?

yes, so true... significant events. I can believe that. Even a person who doesn't "do time and dates" should be able to recall somethings. example.....Like did you do laundry or not? Did you load the laundry machine Nov 2...?

laughing in murder trials is no different than doing cartwheels and stretches, imo...I've known girls that do that stuff too.
its not something I would do, but its not a sign of murder. and I agree it is abnormal behavior...whatever that means?
what is normal behavior then?
Jeffry Dahmer thought eating people was alright...

Raffaele Sollecito has chosen not to testify at the trial, so he will not be giving a final account. He stopped providing Amanda Knox with an alibi on 5 November 2007. He claimed that she went out that evening and came back at about 1.00am.

Kermit wrote: "It's a mystery, because I understand that the cottage didn't have a land-line (each girl had her own mobile or mobiles)(although, it's not clear how their Internet connectivity worked ... by using a wireless signal from the boys downstairs?)"

I clearly remember seeing a land line phone on the wall of the cottage, looked like it was close to the entrance, in a series of photos posted sometime last month--I can't find the link, but there were over 100 pictures of the crime scene and the investigation and the people involved, some previously published, others not. They all had the name "Iberfoto" screened across them to prevent copying. I have used the search feature but can't pull up the post. Anyone remember whose post it was?

Good question.

If Raffaele really wanted to do some Headline grabbing theatrics, when Amanda had finished her declaration yesterday, he could have stood up and requested to make the following spontaneous statement:

"Your honour, I wish to state that everything that Amanda has said yesterday and today is true as far as I am concerned. I confirm her alibi that she was with me all night."

But ........... he didn't. He maintained his Poker Face, and Bongiorno & Co. are doing their best to ensure that he doesn't uselessly waste any of their legal options by pinning his fate to Amanda. While unfortunately it's not very romantic and wouldn't form the story line of Titanic II - it is probably the best legal strategy (if not moral) for the guy at this point in the process.

For whatever Frank's opinion is worth these days, it's clear from his latest post that he thinks Comodi was talking about the 1247 call. As Frank puts it: Actually I should remind Mrs Comodi that the call to the Edda was at 12:47 not at 12:00, as she said. So, even if the door wasn't open yet, Amanda was already panicking for the missing of Meredith, the robbery and everything else.

I'm not surprised that this was a difficult line of questioning for Amanda because - as I've said several times before - it seems bizarre that Amanda doesn't mention this phone call in her email. Her email mentions no phone calls at all, but rather a lot of running about knocking on doors and checking windows, culminating in Raffaele trying to kick down the door whereupon they themselves make a decision to call the cops.

But Edda Mellas's account has herself receiving a call from Amanda in the middle of the night. She asks whether Amanda has called the police, Amanda says no, and Edda says, so hang up and call them. The phone records show Raffaele calls his sister directly after that phone call finishes.

(And of course cynical people believe that the police are actually in the house at the point when this phone call is being made. And these cynical people have got a lot of witness testimony, CCTV footage and police records to back them up.)

But even forgetting the cynical people for a moment, that phone call is a big problem for Amanda. Contrary to what she testified at the weekend, Amanda was NOT on the phone to Filomena when Raffaele was talking to his sister. (Source: the phone records.) And she HAD just spoken to her mother just before Raffaele made that call (source: phone records) and her mother HAD just told her to call the police. (Source: Edda Mellas.) So Amanda's testimony just plainly doesn't make sense, when judged against unarguable evidence like the phone records, combined with the testimony of her own mother.

That's a big problem, right there.

jfk1191 wrote:



Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that Raffaele Sollecito will not be testifying. I think you raised this point already, jfk, but I don't think it has been addressed. Do you have information to the contrary (ie, that RS intends to testify)?

Thanks 2cats.

I wouldn't be surprised that there was a landline connection. Since the house over the years would have had a number of owners and renters, for sure there would be a copper wire line (maybe two). It would make sense, especially since the Internet connection (either the girls' own connection, or the girls' riding piggyback on the boys' connection) would likely be an ADSL line, and there are no neighbours close enough to pirate wireless coverage in a reliable way (the reinforced concrete carpark is in the way).

The only thing is that there hasn't been mention of such a line, but it could well be there.

2Catsintheyard,
The phone that you saw by the entrance is the internal phone to communicate with whoever might be at the gate and open it if needed.

2catsintheyardwrote:



Once again, I am happy to stand corrected but I think the phone in question is what we call in French an "interphone", one that opens the gate to the cottage or something. Or perhaps a telephone that was left on the wall by a previous tenant but not actually connected to a phone jack?

She said she thought she was on the phone to Filomena when Raffaele talked to his sister. She got that wrong. It was her mother, not Filomena.
But how can this happen? She had lots of time to study the phone records. Her lawyers should have made sure that she doesn't give yet another version that doesn't add up. Very strange!

Okay, okay, I'll calm down about the "mystery call". The newspapers have been known to mess up their information...
My only reference on this is the Corriere della Sera:
Amanda e il "non ricordo" sulla telefonata nella notte - La ragazza chiamò la madre due ore prima che la poli­zia scoprisse l’omicidio: a Seattle erano le tre del mattino

Rough translation:
Amanda: "I don't remember" the night-time phone call
The young lady called her mother two hours before the police discover the murder: in Seattle it was 3 in the morning

One explanation for the "3 in the morning" is that Corriere della Sera didn't take into account the 8 hour time difference that week instead of the normal 9 hours. In that case, instead of 3 a.m. Seattle // 11 a.m. Perugia, it would be 4 a.m. Seattle // 12 noon Perugia. And that fits in only slightly more with Frank, if he's right.
-

I only was asking.
Machine mentioned he's not testifying, (Ia ssume thats NOT taking the stand)
so it "appears" (assumption here) he's sticking to the "AK was out all night" alibi.....which would be very confusing on how the jurors would decide on something like that?

Can someone explain the charges/verdict, for A-F, on how the verdicts will be read?
COURT OF ASSIZE, AMANDA AND RAFFAELE'S TRIAL, JUDGE GIANCARLO MASSEI
its a double-0suspect trial, soooo????

can one suspect be guilty of a specific charge and the other not guilty of the same charge?

Amanda's missing call

Commodi said that Edda, in the jail on the 10th Nov, expressed her suprise that Knox was contradicting her own account, which Edda must of heard at this point. Commodi asked what the conversation was about, Knox suppossed it was about the open door. Nothing else was revealed about the conversation in the jail. Presumably that is why Edda is called to testify next week?.

PLEASE!! Don't go away!

Having a motive seemed very important to you yesterday.

Given your rejection of the possibility that Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy somehow ended up in a spiral of bad and then criminal decisions, we asked you for a hypothetical motive (even if it excludes the current 3 suspects) which could fit the crime scene evidence as it stands.

We're still interested to hear your take on it.

-- And it remains important to me today. I went for a bike ride, apologies if I am not browsing this site at the same time you are.




That's exactly my point. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution. For the life of me I can't imagne a plausible motive, which is my problem with the prosecution's case for homicide. I think the spiral theory works if there is evidence to support it (such as one of the 3 turning on the others). To this point, I haven't seen it. That doesnt mean we won't get there before the end of the trial.

Hi Kermit,

This is from Il Messaggero about the call in the middle of the night to her mother. As I understand it Seattle middle of the night time which was midday Perugia time.
Prosecutor Manuela Comodi:

When you called your mother in the middle of the night, why the call at twelve when still nothing had happened, when nothing was known of the homicide?
"I do not remember this phone call if I did it maybe I had something to say to her, when I went to Raffaele’s I saw there was something strange. But in truth I do not remember why I did it."

Why in prison your mother asks about phonecalls and you do not remember?
"I was confused, I remember only one phone call to my mother ..."

Excuse, you have a lamp with the red button in your room?
'Yes'

Was it still there the night of the crime or in Meredith’s room?
"I don’t remember”
http://tinyurl.com/mtbcw8

But yesterday our discussion was that I (and some others) said that there are murders which occur where there is no apparent motive ... where the human dynamics make bad decisions turn into criminal decisions, without necessarily having a clear motive.

You derided that idea, saying: "You seem to have a "hollywood style" fantasy for what "could" have happened (reminds me of the movie "very bad things" were having sex with a prostitute leads to a series of cover up murders)". That sounds strange, because in fact, in the lack of motive scenario, there isn't much which would interest Hollywood, just some people who shouldn't be together, making bad decisions.

In fact, other posters made comments to you with real life examples of murders which were committed without any clear motive.

So we asked you for an example of a motive in the Perugia case .... I dunno, maybe an unknown intruder who enters to rob, and that crime turns into a homicide (which I personally don't agree with). There you have a motive: theft, and silence the surprised apartment dweller who could somehow identify you.... Can't you come up with something like that on the basis of the evidence, a scenario and motive which satisfies your need to have a motive?

Or is this murder another mystery to add to the list of ships which have disappeared into the Bermuda triangle, condemned to never have an explanation?

(Personally, and very sadfully, I fear that in fact there are some persons out there who would just love for this case to disappear into the Bermuda Triangle)
-

FL Engineer wrote:



We have discussed the issue of motive here extensively. Naturally, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, but this does not necessarily mean that a clear motive has to be proven. There are cases of murder with no apparent motive; there are cases of murder where the body is never located; there are cases of murder where the weapon is never found. And of course, there are cases of murder where no eyewitnesses ever come forward. There are cases of accidental death that are then covered up to look like murder. Either that, or the body is disposed of and the person is said to be missing.

If you are waiting for one of the three to turn on one or both of the others, then you may have to wait for a very long time (as we say in French: tu peux toujours attendre). I think it is also possible, in the absence of a confession or cooperation, that we may never know exactly what happened. That is very sad, but very true. Speaking of confessions, there are lots of murder cases - most in fact - to which no one confesses. And cooperation is not a given either.

Also, you seem to be saying that you have a problem with the prosecutor's case for homicide because there is no apparent motive. But we do have - unfortunately, tragically - a brutally murdered young woman. For me, that trumps motive in terms of determining whether or not we have a homicide on our hands. Given the ultimate cause of death, it would appear that Meredith's attackers or aggressors, as you wish, decided that their best course of action was to finish her off. That sounds very crude, and it pains me to write it, but there you have it. And that is homicide.

Dang!!! That was a fast visit! He got away again!

-

Ah Jools. The lamp! Is this the first mention?

Thanks everyone for translations. This weekend has been interesting. Looks like she has really tripped herself up in many ways. Not that surprising with so many different stories, versions, but still nice to see the big picture coming closer.

Thanks Jools. The phone call to Edda seems to be the 12:47 call.

It sounds like "I don't remember" is going to be La Canción del Verano.

Yes, Edda's been called by Patrick, so she isn't a defence witness. This is also why it's always been Curt, Chris or the aunt doing duty at the court and never Edda...she can't go to the court until she's been called by Patrick's lawyers and has given her testimony.

Hi Jumpy. Yes, that's the first mention of the lamp during the trial and it was really important Mignini got it in there and drew attention to it. You see, the lamp in itself isn't hard evidence, but it is a 'clue'. It is one of the major factors that suggested everything in the cottage wasn't as it seemed...or was 'meant' to seem. There is a lot of...'artificiallity' there and of a kind that cannot be blamed on Rudy, or or put down to innocent day to day activities in the cottage.

But let's not forget, it's not one lamp...but 'two'. Only one is Amanda's of course, but it is the 'positioning' of both the lamps that is just as important as the fact that one of them is from Amanda's room.

Mignini has made sure that the judges take notice of this and consider them very carefully.

But actually, Lancelotti, she wasn't on the phone to her mother. She wasn't on the phone to anyone at all. The phone records seem (to me) to show a straightforward narrative of what happened in those moments:

12:47:23 Amanda calls Edda Mellas (88 seconds - so it ends at 12:48:51) Edda tells her to call the cops. (Amanda's next call is to Edda again, but not until 13:24:18)
12:50:34 Raffaele calls his sister. (39 seconds - so it ends at 12:51:13) His sister tells him to call the cops.
12:51:40 Raffaele calls 112 the first time. (169 seconds - so it ends at 12:54:29) He gets put on hold, and gets tired of waiting.
12:54:39 Raffaele calls 112 again. (57 seconds - so it ends at 12:55:36) This is the call that we've heard many times, with Amanda's voice in the background.

I agree with you that it's "very strange" that she has given another story that doesn't add up, after all this time to study the phone records, and so on.

In fact, I'd go further than "very strange" - I think it's disastrous. Because there is another narrative running against her, and this narrative actually does add up, and is supported by witness statements, cell phone reports, CCTV footage, and police records. And basically this narrative places Amanda and Raffaele in her bedroom at the time of the 1247 call to Edda Mellas. Edda says call the cops. A minute and a half later, that's what Raffaele does, or at least he calls his sister. (And in this narrative, it's easy to guess what happens in that minute and a half - "the cops are already here, how can we call the cops, I'll call my sister," and so on.) And then Vanessa Sollecito also says call the cops. And then he calls the cops. And then he calls the cops again. And then they both emerge from Amanda's bedroom, just before one, which is when Paola testified that she was them coming out of Amanda's bedroom. And that time in turn is fixed by the activation of Meredith's phone at the police station - at 1300.

Okay, she's not obliged to tell the truth, and she's certainly not obliged to carry a stopwatch with her and check exactly when she did what. But she IS obliged to give us neutrals some reason to think that the narrative I've just described isn't what actually happened.

Abolutely right! Meredith is dead, that's a fact! She was murdered, that is also a fact! Therefore, because one cannot think of a motive for her murder, does that therefore mean it never happened? We here and certainly, the Kercher family, wish that was the case. Unfortunately, it isn't. Therefore, what we are left with, is a heap of evidence from the crime scene and other places that clearly shows it was perpetrated by multiple people and indicates that at least one of the people she lived with was involved. Should then, all that evidence simply be thrown into the bin simply because a definitive motive, which actually only the murderers themselves can know, is not provided on a silver platter?

That would be a green light to any murderer wouldn't it...'I can murder who I like, leave as much evidence as need be, but I'll get away with it just as long as I leave no clues or say anything as to the 'why' I did it.'

No, no connection to the Internet then either. The action on the computer on the morning of the 2nd was to open a 'media' file.

No, of course she wasn't, it's not as if she remembers anything precisely. But Filomena's call wasn't anywhere near Raffaele's call to his sister, but her call to her mother took place shortly before.

Finn, do you have the time of the phone call to her mother, the one with "the foot" and the later one when she had discovered that a body is attached to the foot?

Perhaps FLEngineer ran off to read this excerpt from "When Women Kill" where the book talks about motives.


WHEN WOMEN KILL: MOTIVES

Technically, it's against the law to murder people without a good reason for doing so. Tragically, it happens quite often.

So the absence of apparent motive doesn't really matter, any more than turning cartwheels in the police station really matters - what counts is the forensic evidence. Either it's there or it isn't.

It is of interest that in the trial Mignini/Comodi bring the lamp to Amanda's attention, and give her the oppotunity to comment on it being missing. She says "I don't remember".

For what it's worth, Amanda wrote in her email to the world: "i then went into the part of the house that meredith and i share and checked my room for things missing, which there werent. then i knocked on merediths room."
===============
Just a fast test for everyone: if you were to walk into your bedroom and the lamp on your night table was missing (if you don't have a lamp, substitute it for a clock radio or something), would you notice its absence if you were looking for anything out of place or missing?

Countdown 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1-0!!!

My answer is, honestly, yes, I would notice my lamp being gone.

Especially if your room didn't have that much stuff in there to begin with, which Amanda's didn't, having been living out of suit cases.

The moral of the story, it seems, is that if you are ever about to become a murder victim, make an extra effort - go the distance - to be sure that there's a good motive, otherwise no one will ever be convicted for causing your death, in spite of all the evidence.

Hoi Lancelotti,
Ik heb de waarschuwing van Michael gezien en ik kan niet anders als hem gelijk geven voor zijn beslissing.
Ik ben ervan overtuigd dat iedereen op de board het eens is met mijn gedachten.
Wij zijn allemaal bereid om verschillende gezichtspunten te bespreken en te vergelijken, maar alleen als deze eerlijk zijn en zonder andere doeleinden.
Ik hoop dat je begrijpt dat we hier zijn om te discussieren en niet om elkaar in de haren te vliegen.
Ciao
Nicki

I think it's probably been said already, but a motive (or lack of motive) is completely irrelevant in court. It's only useful for those who think 'how could such a sweet innocent person do that?'. In fact all you need to prove is intent. You don't get convicted for thinking about it, you get convicted for carrying it out.

The first one is at 13:24:18, and it lasts for 162 seconds.
The next one is at 13:27:32 and it lasts for 26 seconds.
Both of those are probably in the hubbub that followed the finding of the body (at 1315, according to police records).
Edda calls her back at 13:29:00 and that call lasts for 296 seconds.

So those are the calls that she remembers. (And the one from Filomena was at 12:34:56.) For some reason, she doesn't remember the one at that she made to her mother at 12:47:23. I don't know why this is. But an obvious possibility is that she forgets it because it doesn't fit in with the narrative she's tried to construct around the discovery of the crime - meaning the narrative of the email, in which the series of phone calls she was involved in is completely forgotten and replaced with a story of herself and Raffaele running about the place, knocking on doors, looking through windows, and so on, culminating in them trying to break down Meredith's door and then deciding to call the police.

Okay, she's not obliged to tell the truth. But equally, we're entitled to ask the question, "Why isn't she telling the truth?"

My posts aren't showing up.

I knew if I wrote that, it would show up. Just my luck. All other posts lost apparently.

Were they any good?

Justlooking, I think that 99.9 percent of us are with you on that, whatever our particular viewpoint on this crime may be.

Kermit, Finn

Amanda's first phone call - cleared up

OK .... Commodi said the telephone records confirmed that the first call to Edda was at Mezzogioro (midday), said that several times, also alle dodici (at 12) once. Nothing more precise on the time.

She said the call was also confirmed by the 'incezzione ambientale' ... hope that means the cell? ... 'environmental intercept' means bugger all to me,

As I say, this was the only time that Knox was really in trouble, on the 10th Edda is recorded as saying 'at 12 nothing had happened' ... Commodi continued .... in the sense that no cops have arrived, no door kicked down etc.

Knox recovered her composure pretty quickly and said she supposed that while she was thinking something strange, open door etc. she must have called about that.

Sorry about the delay. I'd be better organised next week, record audio number and time for each point, but with hours of riveting testimony it not as easy as it sounds. I'm exausted, I'd never do it for a living.

Anyway, very interesting weekend? we are moving towards the truth, even got a really funny moment

Patrick's lawyer asking Knox:

Q. 'Did anyone hear your voice at the cottage that night?'

Objection !!!! (presumably not allowed to use rudi's statements)

Q. ' OK, did Rudy hear your voice at the cottage that night?'

Uproar !!!!

OT-OT-OT:

That reminds me of Garrison Keillor, who's first manuscript of "Lake Wobegon Days" was stolen in a briefcase in a train station. The guy had to rewrite the whole book, and he insists that the stolen version (which probably ended up in a nearby garbage bin) was much better than what was finally published.
-
BTW, welcome Mrs. Darcy!!

Ouch!!!!!!!!!!

Kevin, thanks for the work in deciphering the mystery call. Don't kill yourself on documenting all this ... we still have months ahead of us!

Hi Mrsdarcy. It can sometimes be a little fiddly. My advice is to write your posts out on notepad or similar, then copy and paste in your posts, so that they aren't lost, at least until you become used to our board's little foibles.

When you submit a post and hit the 'submit' button, don't assume that your post has been posted. The new software now holds back ones post if someone else has posted in the meantime and asks you if you want to make any changes in light of the latest post. You then have to scroll down and make your changes, or not and hit 'submit' again. The process happens over if someone 'else' posts during that time, so...after hitting submit, ensure you see the little notice that says your post has 'been submitted successfully'...until you see that, it hasn't. It just takes a little getting used to.

In the meantime, welcome, along with all other new members, to PMF!!!

I am glad to hear it!

I don't know why you think I am not being honest? Honest with what? I really don't understand what you mean. Can you give me an example?

That's what I am here for too. Good to see we agree on something!

Oops, I missed this post! That's rather important, if that elicits such emotions from Filomena! Unfortunately for Amanda, Filomena's reaction to her testimony counts for a lot, it says everything.

Thank you kindly for the excellent pointers.

sheesh. I have no idea how sweet or innocent AK, RS, and RG are. I havn't watched any of the videos or read the diaries that people mention. i don't see how that matters. Your statement "but a motive (or lack of motive) is completely irrelevant in court" is absurd hyperbole . I bet 99% of lawyers would disagree with that statment. Maybe motive will not apply in this specific case, but to say "motive is s completely irrelevant in court" is nonsense. Motive is not some absurd legal concept that I alone have created.

It is obvious to me that this board is not quite as neutral as I first thought it was. I did expose a major error in your timeline in the brief day or so I have been here so hopefully everyone has benefited from my brief postings.

thanks,
Jeff Kelsey
Boca Raton, FL

Thank you sooo much! I couldn't find the time for those calls anywhere.


Hmmm, don't know. I would have thought that building a story around known facts would sound a lot better than constructing a whole new one with lots of "I don't remember" in it.
That was a bit disappointing I thought.

Nice to know that you understand Dutch but you replied in English, that's very nice of you.
Sorry, but you did not get the message.
Nicki

that's right. i didn't

Well, the diaries do actually constitute part of the evidence in the 10,000 page case file. They also provide personal accounts from each of the suspects, in their own words, of the days in question. For me, personally speaking, that makes them matter...but then, I'm picky.

On one website, I don't remember which one, I saw two photographs of the murder scene; one of the room where MK's body was found and another of the bathroom. In MK's room, there was a lot of blood, near the wardrobe in particular; but the bathroom also looked frightening. I don't know if it was a bad photo, but there was kind of a pinkish color to the sink and the toilet, and then smears of blood all over, including on the walls. Who on earth (if this photo is fairly accurate) would attribute this amount of blood to menstruation problems? It seems to me any blood in any area of the house, coupled with some other very odd things (the door being ajar, etc.), would alarm any halfway normal female. And why would AK assume menstruation blood would not be cleaned up by her flat-mates, as they were obviously very fastidious in their personal habits, a matter which had been a source of contention between them and her? I know this is no novel observation...I just don't think on this point there is any room for doubt that AK knew MK was dead and that she was not afraid of becoming the next victim...there is no other logical explanation (unless, of course, this photo was inaccurate and the amount of blood in the bathroom was negligible, which I doubt, since I think I remember Filomena referred to blood on the bathroom walls in her testimony).

Others have also referred to the necessity of proving motive. I confess I'm not familiar with the law in Italy, but in the US motive is not something which has to be proven. Of course, every prosecutor will cover the issue of motive because, for the jury, this is always very important. They need a complete picture of the case in order to convict, and the total absence of motive can be compelling, especially where the evidence is less than powerful.

The nice thing about motive, from a prosecutor's point of view, is that it is usually pretty apparent in cases where the defendant and the victim knew each other. Some have referred to MK's murder as a thrill killing, and in some ways I think it was, but there was also an emotional relationship between the accused and the victim...there was tension, there was jealousy (on AK's part). I don't think AK just happened to be present when things got out of hand. I think she was the true mastermind here because she hated MK. She describes MK as her "friend", but then says she "only knew her for a month." Her response to MK's death was not that of a friend or even of an acquaintance; her response is that of an enemy, which is to say, a complete lack of feeling. I don't think she regrets MK's death; I think she is glad MK was killed. That is how jealousy is; it's painful, it's a torment, and when the object of that jealousy is removed, there is relief, which is difficult to hide.

The jury will certainly understand jealousy as a motive, even if it is not laid out for them. AIDA is an opera about jealousy, in which, for the sake of jealousy, murder is committed. Italians understand the force and power of human passions.

Well...those pictures are after chemical enhancement to show up the blood not visible to the naked eye, that isn't what the suspects would have seen...or at least, not 'after' they'd cleaned the bathroom.

The picture you refer to is important though, in that it clarifies the fact that the bathroom was indeed cleaned after the murder and the state it was in before it was cleaned. Of course, the mantra coming from certain quarters is 'there was no clean-up!'. When one also takes into account the various spots, pools, smears and footprints in blood only visible under luminol enhancement all over the common areas of the cottage, it becomes very clear in regard to the fact of the clean-up and the scale of it.

Hi Mrs Darcy,

Judge Paolo Micheli didn’t believe Amanda Knox’s account and noted that she was “mucking about in the house and taking a shower with all that blood [from the murder] around”.

According to the forensic experts’ report, the tap of the wash basin was “notably stained”.

This report by Nick Squires sheds light on just how much blood there actually was in the bathroom:

Miss Romanelli told the court how Miss Knox had telephoned her on the morning after the murder – before Meredith’s body had been found – to say that she had just taken a shower and that she had noticed blood stains in the bathroom.

Miss Romanelli was away from the cottage at the time, having spent the night with her boyfriend.

“She told me ‘It’s very odd. I’ve just come back to the house and the door is open. I had a shower but there’s blood everywhere. I’m going to get Raff. Meredith is nowhere to be seen. Oh God, maybe something’s happened to her, something tragic.’”

It struck Miss Romanelli as strange that Miss Knox would choose to take a shower when the bathroom was spattered with blood.

Police forensic experts later found 13 traces of blood in the bathroom, including a 10-inch-long smear on the floor and numerous droplets.

“I thought it was odd that she’d had a shower when there was blood all over the place,” she told chief prosecutor Giuliano Mignini during cross-examination. “I really don’t think that’s normal.” (The Daily Telegraph, 8 February, 2009).

Too bad for you... You could have learned something....
Schade daß du die Englische Sprache nicht verstehst.....
Tschüß

I don't quite get what you mean, here. Surely if she has to build a story around known facts, that would be a "new" story.

Inventing a story with plenty of "I don't remember" and "it happened so fast" and "I didn't know what to think" might look, on the face of it, to have plenty of wiggle room in it. But actually even this flexible story also needs to tie in with the known facts, one way or the other.

To me, looking at Amanda's difficulty over that question, it seems as if she's overlooked the problem coming from the direction she least expected it - her own mother. (And we can also hear from the weekend's testimony that Edda herself, quite early on, raised the question of why Amanda phoned her at that point.)

Jeff, I don't see why my comments makes you think that this board 'is not quite as neutral' as you first thought? I'm all for discussing the intricacies of the case and the relative importance of a motive in convicting someone of murder, but it looks like you don't want to discuss this.

no idea what you mean, sorry. but thanks for trying anyway!

Hi Mrsdarcy,

The pics you may have seen of Meredith's room all show a lot of blood and are actual photo's of the scene.

There are two kinds of pics from the bathroom:

Some show the real scene, spots and smears of blood on the faucett etc, the bloody footprint on the bathmat but these are all minor compared to the scene in Meredith's room.

After the forensic team had collected the obvious samples of blood which were visible in the bathroom, they applied luminol to try and expose any blood stains which may not have been visible to the naked eye.

The pink pics of the bathroom come from after the time they applied the luminol.

They don't show the luminol in action which reveals blood under an ultra violet light.

The just show where the luminol was applied and were taken after the forensics team had finished their biz.

In short, the pink is used luminol and not blood.

The funny thing is the direct evidence in a case is often less important to a jury than the little bits of of circumstantial evidence when taken all in all just don't add up. It is very easy to contradict direct evidence. Witnesses mistake one person for another; times are mistaken, chronologies don't agree. You can take an entirely innocuous event and have different people write their accounts of that event, and the in most cases they will differ on how much time something took or when something happened and even the order in which things happen.

Direct evidence and forensic evidence is usually subject to interpretation (short of actually "seeing" someone commit the crime, and even that can be challenged for accuracy and the truthfulness of the witness). The major things that point to AK's involvement are...1) the cleanup 2) how did killer get in? 3) showering in a bloody bathroom...but to me the most important indication of her guilt was her response to the authorities' questions and her naming PL. If she had been subjected to actual physical or psychological torture, one could possibly understand her naming somebody, anybody, to get the torture to stop; but I don't think anyone believes this is the case. I think from the outset the Italian authorities put two and two together and believed Amanda was involved, and I suspect they overstates the case to see how she would react. She reacted just as a guilty person always does. They start to "talk" because they don't know what the police know, but they know there is a possibility the police have evidence against them since they themselves know that such evidence has a good likelihood of existing. AK was thinking: okay, they know I was at the apartment when MK was murdered (mamma mia!), so I can't lie about this...so I'll confess I was at the apartment, but I was in the other room, but not a party to the murder, and in fact shocked and horrified by the murder (covering her ears against MK's screams.) This is, of course, totally ridiculous--she would have gone for help or tried to intervene--but it's the best she can do under the circumstances because she is being placed at the scene of the crime during the commission of the crime and has to reveal something. She named PL because 1) she resented him 2) he is a black man. In other words, she is playing the margins. She knows she can name RG, but that would show an inordinate amount of information about something she is still not willing to admit being a party to...naming PL is a way of keeping the authorities at an arm's length until she can get her story straight, a way to get them off her case, which only a guilty person would need to do.

Again, innocent people don't get confused about whether or not they were present at a murder; that is just the stupidest thing imaginable, that someone could be fooled into believing that. We are not talking about an impressionable child here, after all, or someone who is mentally challenged or insane.

Mrs. Darcy wrote:



Welcome, Mrs. Darcy. One of the most bizarre statements made by AK this weekend was that it suddenly dawned on her that what she imagined was wrong. I think the performance in the courtoom was perhaps intended to take the focus away from the absurdity of some of these claims.

Reminds me of that long Jacques Prévert poem:

"Un certain Blaise Pascal, etc. etc."

(That's the whole poem)



I find it kind of interesting that this guy arrives, says that he's new to the case, then zooms in on an issue we haven't talked about for months and which hasn't come up in the trial, calling it a Revelation.

Whether Raffaele and Amanda had a mop in their hands or not isn't important. There was a mop outside. It would have been there (or in the hands of the happy couple) when the Telecommunications Police arrived. Its last use may have been in the cottage or it may have been at Raffaele's place.

This photo was taken 6 months after the crime. The mop and bucket are still outside, still tied to the brick column with a police plastic tape. It's clear that for whatever reason, the investigators decided that this mop was not of interest to analyse (or it was impossible to analyse because of contamination).

If that had been a problem, I'm sure that Bongiorno & Co. would have taken it upon themselves to use the mop outside as part of their campaign to show that the police did a poor job on forensics. They didn't.

So much for the major error

Thanks, I figured the pink was the result of some kind of chemical reaction because this would have been a total bloodbath scene otherwise...but it still looked like there was plenty of blood smears in the bathroom, enough to completely spook the average person. It would take very little blood to give me the heebie-jeebies, especially if it was here and there and in particular on the walls, rather than concentrated in one spot.

But, of course, it's all about the cleanup...that's the main issue.

Jeff the engineer wrote:



Michael acknowledged the error, which in my opinion is less major than you make it out to be. You seem a bit hasty in your judgement of this board, since you have spent so little time here - just a brief day by your own reckoning.

Believe it or not, the question of motive has been discussed amply here, and I would be willing to wager that justlooking knows what he's talking about when it comes to the subject of what matters in a court of law. So do many other people.

I would be glad to defer to you or another expert on matters pertaining to software engineering, but when it comes to logic, I only defer to the force of the better argument, backed up by facts. What JL wrote about motive was spot on. If you have a substantive quibble with it, then state your case. But why attack the board?

mrsdarcy, good to see your posts showing up in all their finery . I agree with your thought processes on this. It's interesting to try and get into how someone would react when being accused of being involved in the murder. I too don't see the false accusation helping her at all. The 'interrogation' was not severe, there was no physical violence (two taps to the back of the head - 'it didn't hurt'), there are plenty of people who deny it even happened that way. If you are being placed at the scene of the crime and you maybe suspect that the police have evidence of this then accusing Patrick is fairly logical. Accusing Rudi - less so. Meredith knew and worked with Patrick. Patrick may have even mentioned at some point how great Meredith was at working the bar, and possibly commented on her attractiveness. Rudi wouldn't have made such a good fall guy as she would have correctly accused one of the perpetrators. It's all a bit of a mess, her mind is probably going like the clappers, any agreed alibi with Raffaele seems to be falling apart after he said he didn't support her version any more. What are you going to do to try and get out of that mess? Well, in reality you don't do or say anything. You certainly don't offer the police 'a gift'. Easier said than done though when you think you're about to be nailed for the murder of your flatmate. So yes, I agree. The false accusation is a very important piece of evidence against her, which is obviously why it took up a large part of the testimony this weekend.

I see. I didn't know the email she sent to her friends was part of the trial so that she had to match her testimony to that. I thought she could just go by the phone records and create a believable story around those. Her mother's testimony will be interesting then!

My thoughts exactly.

When she walked into the police station that night she had an alibi in Raffaele.

An hour later a policeman comes out of the room where Raffaele is being interviewed and informs her that Raffele has just said she went out at 9:00 and didn't come home until 1:00.

She must have been gobsmacked and lost for words.

EDIT to add: If she was innocent she would have had no hesitation in turning around and saying, "Well, he's a liar then!!".

Brilliant . I like poets who cut to the chase like that .

Lancelotti,

Any evidence to demonstrate a changing story is obviously gonna be used in court.

If I robbed a bank in London on Saturday and later sent an email to one of my friends saying I was in Manchester that day, only to follow it up with a later email to another friend which said I was in Glasgow. Don't you think the police would use those emails as a demonstration to the court that I was lying?

Yes, it's pretty amazing the way some people suspend logic in cases like this, where murder is involved. People are forced to confront a degree of malice and brutality that is so beyond what is normal or reasonable that they start to doubt the very idea of normalcy and they are hesitant to apply normal ideas of behavior to the characters involved. This is a big mistake because what is reasonable and normal is the very foundation of any kind of ability to discern the difference between deception and truth. AK's behavior was not, under the circumstances, normal or the kind of behavior attributable to innocence. Her weepy mother can attribute all kinds of rational reasons for her daughter's irrational behavior, but an objective bystander should be able to see the odd behavior for what it is, having no emotional reason to convince himself otherwise.

And the idea that in such a short period of time the authorities could convince AK that she didn't remember whether she was a party to this crime or not defies logic. Had I been her attorney, I would nonetheless have promoted the idea she is mentally ill, bipolar or something, which explains her odd behavior (cartwheels in the police state, lack of sexual inhibitions, pleasure-seeking, etc.)...this would at least have been more tenable than the "I was just so confused" theory.

She must have known the police were onto Sollecito and her, that's why she was hitting herself repeatedly on the head while Sollecito was being interviewed.

Edgardo Giobbi, the head of the violent crimes unit in Rome, said that they could hear Knox shouting in the corridor when Diya Lumumba's name was mentioned. Apparently, her mood swung wildly that evening; one moment she was turning cartwheels and acting impishly and the next she was crying and shouting.

Sollecito was calm and collected for the most part. He only reacted badly when he learnt that Knox was being interviewed without him being present.

Hi everyone. I'm posting audio segments 1 and 2 (out of 8) from the Saturday cross-examination. I admit it, I skipped 8-12 from
Friday because I found Ghirga was being a bit too nice, I wanted to hear Mignini. I'm going to complete the Saturday audios
first.

Personally I think that Mignini exaggerated over the linguistic analysis of the word "suggestion", saying that the police could only have
"suggested" the name of Patrick to Amanda if they had pronounced his name before she did. Whereas she asserts that they pressed
her to identify the addressee of the famous text message, and then when she had identified him (so she was the first to pronounce
his name), they "suggested" to her that she had met him that evening etc. And Mignini refused to accept that this could be called
"suggestion" in Italian, but I found he was splitting hairs and that what she was saying was clear. Mignini's interrogation in this first
part of the day was not as smashing as I hoped, but I'll soon see the rest!

FINN, looking over the testimony, I am CERTAIN that Amanda is saying that she called her mother at 12:47 and didn't hear Raffaele
calling his sister (at 12:51) because she was still on the phone with her mother. And this was BEFORE the police arrived, she is
definitely saying this. Her lawyer also led her to add that some other officers arrived after the door had been broken down and the
postal police had sent everyone outside. (Presumably these were the carabinieri, but we hear no more about them.) She is using
your timeline, the impossible one, for certain! Maybe she read it on here?

Anyway, I will post the audios now.

I saw that picture too. It was all pinkish looking. But then watching videos of the forensic the bathroom appeared very white, as normal.

what was found in the bathroom...I can't imagine anyone taking a shower in a severely bloody bathroom with blood on the walls and everywhere. I can imagine a kid running in the house, zooming to do their thing and taking a shower and quickly leaving quickly without investigating anything, or even thinking much of anything.

I'll have to assume the pinkish picture was a bad camera shot, and the bathroom wasn't at all like the bedroom, unless told differently.

Audios #1 and #2 of Saturday cross-examination



9:30 Saturday morning, June 13, 2009

[Discussion between lawyers, in particular advice to avoid repeating questions
already posed. Background noise and admonitions of "shhh". Also lengthy
discussion of the presence of television cameras, photographers. Final
conclusion: they still have to stay out except for some minutes at the
beginning and/or end.]

9:40 [A lot of background noise, talking in the public.] If the public could
politely cease the noise and comments...yes...we could begin the audience.
[He recalls: trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, all the names
of lawyers involved, defense and prosecution, "parti civili".]

He invites Amanda to state her identity again, which she does.

The interrogation is by the "pubblico ministero" [Mignini].

All right, Miss Knox, can you tell us about when you first met Raffaele
Sollecito?

It was at a concert at the Universita per Stranieri, I think it was on Oct 25.

October 25?

So I've understood [odd remark: meaning "so I've been told?"]

So it was just about a week before the facts, more or less. Now, on the
afternoon and evening of Oct 31, can you tell us what you did?

In the evening?

Afternoon and evening.

So, in the afternoon, I remember that I met a friend for coffee, my friend
Spiros. We had coffee in the center, and then in the street when I was going
back to meet Raffaele, I was still with him and I met someone I had gotten to
know at "Le Chic", who said "We'll see each other later at Le Chic"...

You said "We'll see each other later?"

Yes, yes.

To whom? To Raffaele's friend?

No, no. It was my friend, that I had gotten to know in a bar, a cafe that
also had internet service, and then, okay. What happened next? [Long
pause with sound 'ummmmm', 'hmmm'.] Did I go home? I can't remember.

You can't remember.

And then, for Halloween, I know I went to Le Chic first, and then after I was
there for a little while, I again met Spiros, outside the Merlin, and we went
to a place with a bunch of his friends, I can't remember what place it was
now, a kind of Irish pub, and then he...I said I was tired and wanted to
meet Raffaele in the center, and so he accompanied me on foot to near the
church, where I met Raffaele, who took me to his apartment.

Now. [I'm using "Now" today to translate "Senta" which really means "Listen",
but starting a question with "Listen" in English makes it sound kind of
aggressive, which for now Mignini's voice is not. Rather, quiet and very
poised.] Have you ever made use of drugs? In particular on the afternoon
or the evening of Nov 1?

I did smoke a joint with Raffaele in the evening, yes.

So you do confirm this detail.

Yes.

So now we get to Patrick's message.

Okay.

So, Patrick's message came, I believe you said, at 8:15.

Yes.

More or less. What did it say exactly?

I don't remember the exact words...

[Interrupts] Was it in Italian? Was it in Italian?

Yes, it was in Italian. It had to do with the fact that there wasn't anyone
at Le Chic so I didn't need to go to work.

And you saw this message at around what time?

Uh, I don't remember the time.

But was it after a little while or right away?

I was on Raffaele's bed and then I noticed that there was this symbol on my
phone.

But you don't remember when?

No. I don't look at the clock.

And you answered Patrick -- how did you answer?

Well, I wrote something like "Okay, see you later ["ci vediamo piu -- um --
tardi"], buona serata.


You answered in which language?

In Italian. He didn't speak English.

"Ci vediamo piu tardi", you said.

Yes.

OK --

Which in English means "See you" --

Yes but, excuse me, but you answered in Italian.

Yes.

"Ci vediamo piu tardi."

He doesn't speak English.

Very well. It follows that your cell phone [gives number] and Sollecito's
[gives number] stopped their activity respectively, yours at 8:35 and
his at 8:42. Why?

I turned mine off, because I didn't want to get another message from Patrick,
because actually I didn't really want to go to work. For example, he
had told me that I didn't have to work, but if then a bunch of people showed
up, well honestly, he had told me I didn't have to go to work and I wanted
to stay with Raffaele.

Yesterday if I'm not mistaken, you said that you did it to stay with
Raffaele.

Yes.

On page 40 (I don't know if it corresponds) of the minutes of your interrogation
of December 17, you said, I'll read it, that: "I turned off my phone to
save my battery." Do you remember that?

Well, if it's written there, it must be okay.

Today you're saying one thing, in the interrogation you said another. [Voice
intervenes: can you be more precise about the page?] Page 40: I'll read it.
"But why did you turn off your phone?" Interrogation of Dec 17. "To save
my battery." "Do you usually keep it on at night?" [Voices arguing, a bit
annoyed, they can't find it in the text?] Well, bottom of page 39, but these
were the words. Knox's answer: "To save my battery." "Do you usually keep
it on at night?" "If I have something to do the next morning." "But the
next morning was the day on which everyone skipped school." "But we were
supposed to go to Gubbio the next day with Raffaele." The next day was the
2nd?

Mhm.

You wanted to go to Gubbio on the 2nd or the 3rd?

No, on the 2nd we wanted to go to Gubbio.

So, you turned off your telephone so Patrick wouldn't be able to call you in
to work, or you turned it off to save your battery, not to use up your
battery. Now, you remember what, what battery you had? what kind of autonomy
it had?

What kind of battery?

Yes.

I don't know what type of battery it was, but...

The autonomy of the battery? Do you remember?

I think it was about one or two days. It wasn't very long, but in the end,
well, for example, the next morning, I was going to go to Gubbio, but
I didn't have time to charge up the battery, so I thought, I don't want to
get any phone calls this evening, and if I want to have my phone with me
in Gubbio, I wanted it to be reasonably charged up. That's why I turned it off.

I see. Now -- are we hearing something from the "contestazione"?
[Voices arguing] In fact, yesterday Amanda Knox stated that turning off the
cell phone was to guarantee her a free evening without being...[interruption]
But at the interrogation of Dec 17 she said...On Dec 17 she said it was
to save battery and also for this reason [different voices, can't
tell who is saying what, but I think this is Ghirga. Also they are
interrupting each other]. So, I thought I understood that she had two
reasons. We're not arguing about that. The "contestazione" isn't about that. It's about... Please, please, let's return to the cross-examination by the
pubblico ministero. The defense lawyers will have the final words. Everyone
will hear what they have to say then.

The objection was because the request to introduce...[A bit more yelling.]
Enough now ["adesso basta"].

[I think this is Ghirga] My objection concerned the fact that the pubblico
ministero seemed to contest the fact that in the Dec 17 interrogation, she
also explained that she turned off her phone because she didn't want to be
called by Patrick, because she didn't want to be disturbed. This doesn't
correspond to the truth, because on page 40 of the minutes, she actually
says "So, I turned it off also to not run the risk that Patrick would
change his mind and call me in." [Interruption] "To save her battery!"
"All right, we heard the pubblico ministero...we heard him describe a reason,
two reasons, if there's a contradiction, there will be an analysis. It's
not only half a contradiction, or not a contradiction." [different voices]
Now let's leave this question...please, pubblico ministero. Go ahead. [I'm
using this expression to translate "prego".]

Why? erm-ahem -- why did you return to this point several times?
Okay.

Why did you speak about Patrick only in the interrogation of Nov 6 at 1:45?
Why didn't you mention him before? You never mentioned him before.

Before what?

In your preceding declarations, on Nov 2 at 15:30, on Nov 3 at 14:45, then,
there was another one, Nov 4, 14:45, and then there's Nov 6, 1:45. Only
in these declarations, and then in the following spontaneous declarations,
did you mention the name of Patrick. Why hadn't you ever mentioned him before?

Because that was the one where they suggested Patrick's name to me.

All right, now is the time for you to make this precise and specific. At
this point I will take...no, I'll come back to it later. You need to
explain this. You have stated: "The name of Patrick was suggested to me.
I was hit, pressured."

Yes.

Now you have to tell me in a completely detailed way, you have to remember
for real, you have to explain step by step, who, how, when, was the name of
Patrick suggested to you, and what had been done before that point, when
the name of Patrick hadn't yet come up like a mushroom; in the preceding
situation. Who put pressure on you, what do you mean by the word "pressure",
who hit you. You said: "They hit me", and at the request of the lawyer
Ghirga, yesterday, you described two little blows, two cuffs.

Yes.

So that would be what you meant by being hit?

Yes.

Or something else? Tell me if there was something else. You can tell us.

Okay.

[Interruption by Ghirga, to explain, I guess to Amanda, that the pubblico
ministero is coming back to the same terrain covered yesterday, in order to
give her the chance to add detail.]

All right [Amanda says]. Okay.

If you could give more detail, be more precise, exactly what was suggested to
you, about the cuffs, all that.

Okay.

And who did all this, if you can.


Okay. Fine. So, when I got to the Questura, they placed me to the side, near
the elevator, where I was waiting for Raffaele. I had taken my homework, and
was starting to do my homework, but a policeman came in, in fact there were
I don't know, three of them or something, and they wanted to go on talking to
me. They asked me again --

Excuse me, excuse me --

-- to tell them --

Excuse me for interrupting you otherwise we'll forget --

[Ghirga] I object to this interruption! The question was asked...[Yelling,
interruptions, "It's impossible to question someone this way! There's a
rule that says one should avoid any interruptions. She has the right to
finish her answer. It's not possible to go on like this, no, no, no..."
interrupting...Mignini starts "I can" -- Ghirga: "no, nobody can! We have
to make sure that when someone is speaking, there's no superimposing of
voices. And since the accused is undergoing examination, she has the right
to be allowed to answer in the calmest possible way. Interruptions and
talking at the same time don't help, and they can't be written down in the
minutes, which obliges the courts to suspend the audience and start it again
at a calmer and more tranquil moment." Mignini starts again: "Presidente..."
Ghirga: "No, no, no! Interruptions are not allowed! The accused is
allowed to answer without interruption, and then when she's done, you can go
back and ask questions" -- interruption -- "please! While she's speaking,
everyone is requested to see that she is not interrupted. During her
exposition one could ask "When?" for instance if she is saying
"I was doing homework" -- Amanda: "Okay". Ghirga: "If you say precise dates
and times, they won't need to come back over your testimony." "Okay."
"In your exposition, be more detailed about the time and the date."

Okay. Um --

[Ghirga:] So everyone is asked to avoid interruptions while she is speaking,
and when she's finished, we can go over what she said. Go ahead.

Thank you. So, here is...how I understood the question, I'm answering about
what happened to me on the night of the 5th and the morning of the 6th of
November 2007, and when we got to the Questura, I think it was around
10:30 or nearer 11, but I'm sorry, I don't know the times very precisely,
above all during that interrogation. [End of Audio #1, starting Audio #2.]
The more the confusion grew, the more I lost the sense of time. But I
didn't do my homework for a very long time. I was probably just reading the
first paragraph of what I had to read, when these policemen came to sit
near me, to ask me to help them by telling them who had ever entered in
our house. So I told them, okay, well there was this girlfriend of mine and
they said no no no, they only wanted to know about men. So I said okay,
here are the names of the people I know, but really I don't know, and they
said, names of anyone you saw nearby, so I said, there are some people that
are friends of the boys, or of the girls, whom I don't know very well,
and it went on like this, I kept on answering these questions, and finally
at one point, while I was talking to them, they said "Okay, we'll take
you into this other room." So I said okay and went with them, and they started
asking me to talk about what I had been doing that evening. At least, they
kept asking about the last time I saw Meredith, and then about everything
that happened the next morning, and we had to repeat again and again everything
about what I did. Okay, so I told them, but they always kept wanting times
and schedules, and time segments: "what did you do between 7 and 8?" "And
from 8 to 9? And from 9 to 10?" I said look, I can't be this precise, I
can tell you the flow of events, I played the guitar, I went to the house,
I looked at my e-mails, I read a book, and I was going on like this.
There were a lot people coming in and going out all the time, and there was
one policeman always in front of me, who kept going on about this. Then at
one point an interpreter arrived, and the interpreter kept on telling me,
try to remember the times, try to remember the times, times, times, times,
and I kept saying "I don't know. I remember the movie, I remember the dinner,
I remember what I ate," and she kept saying "How can you you remember this
thing but not that thing?" or "How can you not remember how you were dressed?"
because I was thinking, I had jeans, but were they dark or light, I just
can't remember. And then she said "Well, someone is telling us that you were
not at Raffaele's house. Raffaele is saying that at these times you were not
home." And I said, but what is he saying, that I wasn't there? I was there!
Maybe I can't say exactly what I was doing every second, every minute, because
I didn't look at the time. I know that I saw the movie, I ate dinner. And
she would say "No no no, you saw the film at this time, and then after that
time you went out of the house. You ate dinner with Raffaele, and then there
is this time where you did nothing, and this time where you were out of the
house. And I said, no, that's not how it was. I was always in Raffaele's
apartment.

[Ghirga, after his long discussion about interruptions above, actually
takes advantage of a tiny pause here to slip in: "Excuse me, excuse me, the
pubblico ministero wants to hear precise details about the suggestions about
what to say and the cuffs, who gave them to you."]

All right. What it was was a continuous crescendo of these discussions and
arguments, because while I was discussing with them, in the end they started
to little by little and then more and more these remarks about "We're not
convinced by you, because you seem to be able to remember one thing but not
remember another thing. We don't understand how you could take a shower
without seeing..." And then, they kept on asking me "Are you sure of what
you're saying? Are you sure? Are you sure? If you're not sure, we'll take
you in front of a judge, and you'll go to prison, if you're not telling the
truth." Then they told me this thing about how Raffaele was saying that
I had gone out of the house. I said look, it's impossible. I don't know if
he's really saying that or not, but look, I didn't go out of the house.
And they said "No, you're telling a lie. You'd better remember what you did
for real, because otherwise you're going to prison for 30 years because you're
a liar." I said no, I'm not a liar. And they said "Are you sure you're not
protecting someone?" I said no, I'm not protecting anyone. And they said
"We're sure you're protecting someone." Who, who, who, who did you meet when
you went out of Raffaele's house?" I didn't go out. "Yes, you did go out.
Who were you with?" I don't know. I didn't do anything. "Why didn't you
go to work?" Because my boss told me I didn't have to go to work. "Let's see
your telephone to see if you have that message." Sure, take it. "All right,
So one policeman took it, and started looking in it, while the others kept
on yelling "We know you met someone, somehow, but why did you meet someone?"
But I kept saying no, no, I didn't go out, I'm not pro-pro-pro---

[Ghirga again I think, slipping into a tiny hole created by her stammering
over the word "protecting" -- interestingly by the way, she stammered badly
over pronouncing this word earlier as well -- an Eyes for Lies red flag??]

Excuse me, okay, we understand that there was a continuous crescendo.

Yes.

As you said earlier. But if we could now get to the questions of the pubblico
ministero, otherwise it will really be impossible to avoid some interruptions.
If you want to be able to continue as tranquilly, as continuously as possible...

Okay, I'm sorry.

So, if you could get to the questions about exactly when, exactly who...these
suggestions, exactly what did they consist in? It seems to me...

Okay. Fine. So, they had my telephone, and at one point they said "Okay,
we have this message that you sent to Patrick", and I said I don't think I did,
and they yelled "Liar! Look! This is your telephone, and here's your
message saying you wanted to meet him!" And I didn't even remember that I
had written him a message. But okay, I must have done it. And they were saying
that the message said I wanted to meet him. That was one thing. Then there
was the fact that there was this interpreter next to me, and she was telling
me "Okay, either you are an incredibly stupid liar, or you're not able to
remember anything you've done." So I said, how could that be? And she said,
"Maybe you saw something so tragic, so terrible that you can't remember it.
Because I had a terrible accident once where I broke my leg..."

The interpreter said this to you?

Yes.

I also wanted to ask you because it isn't clear to me: only the interpreter
spoke to you, or the others also?

All the others also.

Everyone was talking to you, all the others, but were they speaking in English?

No, in Italian.

In Italian. And you answered in Italian?

In Italian, in English...

And what was said to you in Italian, did it get translated to you in English?

A bit yes, a bit no, there was so much confusion, there were so many people
all talking at the same time, one saying "Maybe it was like this, maybe
you don't remember," another saying "No, she's a stupid liar," like that...

But everything was eventually translated, or you understood some of it and
answered right away?

It wasn't like an interrogation, like what we're doing now, where one person
asks me a question and I answer. No. There were so many people talking,
asking, waiting, and I answered a bit here and there.

All right. You were telling us that the interpreter was telling you about
something that had happened to her. [Interruption: Ghirga: This isn't
a spontaneous declaration now. This is an examination. That means the
pubblico ministero has asked you a question, always the same question, and
we still haven't really heard the answer to it.]

Yes, sorry.

Right, so you were saying that there was this continuous crescendo.

It's difficult for me to say that one specific person said one specific thing.
It was the fact that there were all these little suggestions, and someone
was saying that there was the telephone, then there was the fact that...
then more than anything what made me try to imagine something was someone
saying to me "Maybe you're confused, maybe you're confused and you should
try to remember something different. Try to find these memories that
obviously you have somehow lost. You have to try to remember them. So I
was there thinking, but what could I have forgotten? And I was thinking,
what have I forgotten? what have I forgotten? and they were shouting
"Come on, come on, come on, remember, remember, remember," and boom! on
my head. "Remember!" And I was like -- Mamma Mia! and then boom!

Excuse me, excuse me, please, excuse me...

Those were the cuffs.

[Voices: "This is impossible!" "Avoid thinking aloud!"]

[Ghirga:] So, the pubblico ministero asked you, and is still asking you,
who is the person that gave you these two blows that you just showed us
with a gesture?

It was a policewoman, but I didn't know their names.

Go ahead, pubblico ministero.

So, now, I asked you a question, and I did not get an answer. You ...
[interruptions! Ghirga: "I object to that remark! That is a personal
evaluation! Presidente! That is very suggestive. He is making an unacceptable
conclusion. He asked a question, but this is a personal opinion. It
seems to me that she did answer. She answered for a good five minutes."
"Sorry, but I thought we were supposed to avoid interruptions, that we weren't
supposed to interrupt when someone was speaking--" "But--" "Wait -- excuse
me, please, let's try to avoid these moments which don't help anybody and
probably harm the person undergoing the examination because they create
tension in the court--" Now Ghirga and Mignini are speaking at the same time
for quite a little moment -- Ghirga's voice is louder -- "Let's take the
answers as they come, later the right moment will come to say that from
this examination, you did not obtain the answer that you expected, that the
accused did not answer the questions. That is a later phase. At this
moment, let's stay with the answers that we have, even if they are not
exhaustive, and avoiding personal evaluations of their value. Go ahead,
publicco ministero, go ahead." "I would like to--" "Yes, yes, go ahead,
return to your question."]

The central point of that interrogation was the moment when the name of
Patrick emerged. You spoke of suggestions, you spoke of pressure, you spoke
of being hit, I asked you to give me a precise description of who gave
you the blows, you need to describe this person. Was it a woman or a man?
Who asked you the questions? Who was asking you the questions? There
was the interpreter, who was the person who was translating. But the exam,
the interrogation, who was doing it? Apart from the people who were going
in and out. You must have understood that there was a murder, and this
was a police station, and the investigation was hot, and what I am asking
you is, who was actually conducting the interrogation?

[Ghirga? not sure, softer voice. "The pubblico ministero is asking you,
you said that the two blows were given to me by someone whose name I don't
know. The pubblico ministero is asking you firstly if you can give a
description of the person who hit you, if you saw her, and if you can
give us a description. The second question --"]

So, when I -- the person who was conducting the interrogation --

That was the second question! You're starting with the second question,
that's fine, go ahead, go ahead.

Oh, sorry...

Go on, go on. The person who was conducting the interrogation...

Well, there were lots and lots of people who were asking me questions, but
the person who had started talking with me was a policewoman with long
hair, chestnut brown hair, but I don't know her. Then in the circle of
people who were around me, certain people asked me questions, for example
there was a man who was holding my telephone, and who was literally
shoving the telephone into my face, shouting "Look at this telephone!
Who is this? Who did you want to meet?" Then there were others, for instance
this woman who was leading, was the same person who at one point was
standing behind me, because they kept moving, they were really surrounding
me and on top of me. I was on a chair, then the interpreter was also sitting
on a chair, and everyone else was standing around me, so I didn't see
who gave me the first blow because it was someone behind me, but then I
turned around and saw that woman, and she gave me another blow to the head.

This was the same woman with the long hair?

Yes, the same one.

All right. Are you finished? Tell me if you have something to add.


Well, I already answered.

Fine, fine, all right. So I'll go on with the questions. In the minutes
it mentions three people, plus the interpreter. Now, you first said
that they suggested things to you. What exactly do you mean by the word
"suggestion", because from your description, I don't see any suggestion.
I mean, what is meant by the Italian word "suggerimento", I don't find it.

[Ghirga: "Excuse me, excuse me, please, please, excuse me, excuse me! Listen,
the pubblico ministero is asking you: "suggestions", you also mentioned
words that were "put in your mouth", versions, things to say, circumstances
to describe. The pubblico ministero is asking two things: who made the
suggestions, and what exactly were you told to say?]

All right. It seems to me that the thoughts of the people standing around me,
there were so many people, and they suggested things to me in the sense that
they would ask questions like: "Okay, you met someone!" No, I didn't.
They would say "Yes you did, because we have this telephone here, that
says that you wanted to meet someone. You wanted to meet him." No, I don't
remember that. "Well, you'd better remember, because if not we'll put
you in prison for 30 years." But I don't remember! "Maybe it was him that
you met? Or him? You can't remember?" It was this kind of suggestion.

When you say they said "Maybe you met him?", did they specify names? Well,
the important fact was this message to Patrick, they were very excited about
it. So they wanted to know if I had received a message from him --

Please, please! [Interruptions, multiple yelling: "It's not possible to go
on this way!" "Please, please, excuse me, excuse me!" "I'm going to ask
to suspend the audience! I demand a suspension of five minutes!"
"Excuse me, excuse me!" "Please!" "Viva Dio, Presidente!" "Presidente,
I'm trying to do a cross-examination, and I must have the conditions that
allow me to do it! The defense keeps interrupting." "Excuse me, excuse me,
please--" "We're asking for a suspension!" "Presidente, you've heard all
the demands, please decide." "Please--" "Pubblico ministero, please wait!"
Several moments of silence, during which Amanda murmurs in a very tiny
voice: "Scusa." "I want to point out that the accused offers answers to
every question. She could always refuse to respond. She is answering, and
that doesn't mean she has to be asked about the same circumstances again
and again. She is not a witness. The accused goes under different rules.
We have to give the answers--" "But--" "Please, please! We have to accept
the answers given by the accused. She can stop answering at any time.
At some point we simply have to move on to different questions. One
circumstance is being asked again, the accused answered. The rituality
of the court, of the process, has to be respected. The pubblico ministero
was asking about suggestions. [To Amanda] If you want a suspension we
can do it right away." "No, I'm fine." So the pubblico ministero was asking
about the suggestions. All right?" "Sure."]

So, were you the one who gave the first indication, who first introduced
this name "Patrick"?

It was because of the fact that they were saying that I apparently had
met someone and they said this because of the message, and they were saying
"Are you sure you don't remember meeting THIS person, because you wrote
this message."

In this message, was there the name of the person it was meant for?

No, it was the message I wrote to my boss. The one that said "Va bene.
Ci vediamo piu tardi. Buona serata."

But it could have been a message to anyone. Could you see from the message
to whom it was written?

Actually, I don't know if that information is in the telephone. But I told
them that I had received a message from Patrick, and they looked for it in
the telephone, but they couldn't find it, but they found the one I sent to
him.

[Someone else] I also wanted to ask you for the pubblico ministero, you wrote
this message in Italian. I wanted to ask you, since you are an English
speaker, what do you do when you wrote in Italian? Do you first think in
English, and then translate into Italian, or do you manage to think
directly in Italian?

No, at that time, I first thought in English, then I would translate, and
then write.

So that clarifies that phrase. Go ahead, pubblico ministero, but I think
we've exhausted the question.

Yes, yes. I just wanted one concept to be clear: that in the Italian language,
"suggerire" means "indicate", someone who "suggests" a name actually says
the name and the other person adopts it. That is what "suggerimento" is,
and I...so my question is, did the police first pronounce the name of Patrick,
or was it you? And was it pronounced after having seen the message in the
phone, or just like that, before that message was seen?

Objection! Objection! On page 95, I read--

Before the objection, what was the question?

The question was: the question that was objected was about the term
"suggerimento". Because I interpret that word this way: the police say
"Was it Patrick?" and she confirms that it was Patrick. This is suggestion
in the Italian language.

Excuse me, please, excuse me. Let's return to the accused. What was the
suggestion, because I thought I had understood that the suggestion consisted
in the fact that Patrick Lumumba, to whom the message was addressed, had
been identified, they talked about "him, him, him". In what terms exactly
did they talk about this "him"? What did they say to you?

So, there was this thing that they wanted a name. And the message --

You mean, they wanted a name relative to something.

Of the person I had written to, precisely. And they told me that I knew,
and that I didn't want to tell. And that I didn't want to tell because I
didn't remember or because I was a stupid liar. Then they kept on about
this message, that they were literally shoving in my face saying "Look
what a stupid liar you are, you don't even remember this!" At first, I
didn't even remember writing that message. But there was this interpreter
next to me who kept saying "Maybe you don't remember, maybe you don't
remember, but try," and other people were saying "Try, try, try to remember
that you met someone, and I was there hearing "Remember, remember, remember,"
and then there was this person behind me who -- it's not that she actually
really physically hurt me, but she frightened me...

"Remember!" is not a suggestion. It is a strong solicitation of your memory.
Suggestion is...

But it was always "Remember" following this same idea, that...

But they didn't literally say that it was him!

No. They didn't say it was him, but they said "We know who it is, we know
who it is. You were with him, you met him."

So, these were the suggestions.

Yes.

Pubblico ministero, I object here on the dynamics, because...[arguing]

I contest it because in the minutes of the Dec 17 interrogation, page 95,
you say: The police could not have suggested-- [Tremendous arguing and
yelling, some saying that they need to know the exact page, it's different
in their version, others that the pubblico ministero should not be
interrupted, others that the reading should not be interrupted...]

End of Audio #2

Thanks, Thoughtful - that's very interesting. I must admit, I haven't had time to listen to the audio files, so I have to go by what you and others say.

So we can just observe that there is a minute and a half between the end of her phone call to Edda, and the beginning of the phone call from Raffaele to his sister. And of course in the normal run of events, there would be no problem with getting this kind of detail wrong.

But there IS a problem when the other scenario has you putting down the phone to your ma, with the police already in the house, and telling Raffaele he'd better phone the police quick. That's not the time to start getting hazy with the details, and claiming to have been on the phone at a point when the cellphone records contradict you, and support the other story.

Yes, I agree. Of course we know there are 10 000 pages of evidence, with the email amongst them, but it was only at the weekend that the email was really introduced into the case. And - more or less - Amanda is reiterating what she said in the email, except now it's in court and for real. I think that's going to make things very interesting indeed.

[quote="thoughtful"]Hi everyone. I'm posting audio segments 1 and 2 (out of 8) from the Saturday cross-examination. I admit it, I skipped 8-12 from
Friday because I found Ghirga was being a bit too nice, I wanted to hear Mignini. I'm going to complete the Saturday audios
first.

Thoughtful -

Really appreciate your efforts here, since the only Italian I could understand was "Mama Mia!"

Thanks for your time on the translation and typing!

Thoughtful - you're a star on this board. It must have taken you ages to translate and document this. Simply brilliant.

For thoughtful:

Except that it should say "great job"! Thanks for taking the time to provide us with these transcripts. I get a headache just reading them! I think Mignini may have been splitting hairs; yet, at the same time it is difficult to come away with a firm sense of exactly what happened in light of AK's unfinished sentences and repetition and her lawyer's interruptions (after complaining about them!). And the physical brutality turns out to be one or two slaps to the back of the head; and we don't even know who did that. Mama Mia! It would be great to have transcripts or tapes of the session. AK is maddenly vague on some points.

What strikes me overall is that her cool performance here is at odds with what she says happened on Nov 5/6. Well, that and the discrepancies with the phone records.

Thanks so much Thoughtful for the translation!

Wow, is it me or does it seem like Ghirga suggested Amanda suspend the answers? I'll read it again. In any case, I imagine the guy went home to a couple asprin and a stiff drink.

Yes, it's pretty amazing the way some people suspend logic in cases like this, where murder is involved. People are forced to confront a degree of malice and brutality that is so beyond what is normal or reasonable that they start to doubt the very idea of normalcy and they are hesitant to apply normal ideas of behavior to the characters involved. This is a big mistake because what is reasonable and normal is the very foundation of any kind of ability to discern the difference between deception and truth. AK's behavior was not, under the circumstances, normal or the kind of behavior attributable to innocence. Her weepy mother can attribute all kinds of rational reasons for her daughter's irrational behavior, but an objective bystander should be able to see the odd behavior for what it is, having no emotional reason to convince himself otherwise.

And the idea that in such a short period of time the authorities could convince AK that she didn't remember whether she was a party to this crime or not defies logic. Had I been her attorney, I would nonetheless have promoted the idea she is mentally ill, bipolar or something, which explains her odd behavior (cartwheels in the police state, lack of sexual inhibitions, pleasure-seeking, etc.)...this would at least have been more tenable than the "I was just so confused" theory.